It was thought that the Packers’ 2018 game with the Los Angeles Rams might end up in London. And as someone who lives in Los Angeles, I can say thank god that is not the case.

I don’t know if the Rams have had a sellout at the Los Angeles Coliseum, where they are playing until their Inglewood stadium opens. However, that place seats 93,607, so I have my doubts.

I went to the Rams’ playoff game against the Falcons and I can tell you that game wasn’t sold out. I can also tell you that I would wager that the Rams’ game against the Packers will be a sellout.

So what is their incentive to agree to play Green Bay in London?

Zero.

The Packers are one of three teams that haven’t played in London. The Carolina Panthers and Houston Texans are the others.

The next shot for a London game for the Packers likely comes in 2019, when they will face the Los Angeles Chargers. The Chargers currently play in a stadium that seats less than 30,000. They are also waiting for the Rams’ Inglewood stadium to be finished. You could certainly make an argument that it doesn’t make sense to try to cram Packer Nation into that joint.

4 Comments on "London Calling? Not for the Packers"

I know it is this “author’s” perspective that the Packers have not played in London due to some sort of special Packer privilege. While this seems plausible when you look at how the NFL let them off the hook completely for cheating and putting a good enough to play and with no new injury Aaron Rodgers back on IR — a clear cut violation with a clear cut outcome (must put AR on waivers) I do not totally buy it.

After all, the NFL gives even more preference and stadium revenue regarding the Cowboys yet they’ve played in London. And the other two teams who have not, Texans and Panthers, are not exactly #1 fan favorites or big stadium revenue earners.

I also see a lot of arrogance with the author’s assumption (50/50 he will be right but not 100%) that if the Packers play in London it will be the others team’s home game.

Congratulations! A Vikings QB has better stats than a guy who was out for over half the season with a broken collarbone! There you go with your crooked perspective again. Whatever you gotta tell yourself to sleep at night.

QB rating is based on performance in game time not the amount of game time. See the difference? In fact, more game time is more likely to bring things down to a baseline — for instance, a higher completion percentage (cited above) is easier to obtain in 100 throws than in 300 throws. As well, teams have more time and perspective to game plan vs. a QB who has played all year rather than lesser time.

Bleacher Report did reference his # of wins vs. losses. That was not a comparison to Rodgers, that was stating facts. The comparison to Rodgers or against Rodgers, was in QB rating. There was no unfair advantage for Keenum in that comparison, just a true fact he played better than Rodgers.

I invite you to join me in rooting for Case Keenum and the Vikings in the playoffs!